State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's audit of the Ramapo school district

7/27/2019 State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's audit of the Ramapo school district

1/27

DIVISIONOF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

& SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

O F F I C E O F T H E N E W YO R K ST A T E C O M P T R O L L E R

Report of Examination

Period Covered:

July 1, 2011 January 14, 2013

2013M-189

RamapoCentral School District

Fund Balance and EmployeeCompensation

Thomas P. DiNapoli


2/27

11DIVISIONOF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

Page

AUTHORITY LETTER 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 5Background 5

Objective 5

Scope and Methodology 5 Comments of District Officials and Corrective Action 6

FUND BALANCE 7Encumbrances 7

Tax Certiorari Reserve 9

Unemployment Reserve 10

Insurance Reserve 10

Recommendations 11

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION 12Recommendation 12

APPENDIX A Response From District Officials 13

APPENDIX B OSC Comments on the Districts Response 21APPENDIX C Audit Methodology and Standards 24APPENDIX D How to Obtain Additional Copies of the Report 25APPENDIX E Local Regional Office Listing 26

Table of Contents


3/27

2 OFFICEOFTHE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER2

State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller

Division of Local Governmentand School Accountability

September 2013

Dear District Officials:

A top priority of the Office of the State Comptroller is to help local government officials manage

government resources efficiently and effectively and, by so doing, provide accountability for tax

dollars spent to support government operations. The Comptroller oversees the fiscal affairs of local

governments statewide, as well as compliance with relevant statutes and observance of good business

practices. Thisfiscal oversight is accomplished, in part, through our audits, which identify opportunities

for improving operations and Board of Education governance. Audits also can identify strategies to

reduce costs and to strengthen controls intended to safeguard local government assets.

Following is a report of our audit of the Ramapo Central School District, entitled Fund Balance and

Employee Compensation. This audit was conducted pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the State

Constitution and the State Comptrollers authority as set forth in Article 3 of the General Municipal

Law.

This audits results and recommendations are resources for local government officials to use in

effectively managing operations and in meeting the expectations of their constituents. If you have

questions about this report, please feel free to contact the local regional office for your county, as listed

at the end of this report.

Respectfully submitted,

Office of the State Comptroller

Division of Local Government

and School Accountability

State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller


4/27


Office of the State ComptrollerState of New York

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ramapo Central School District (District) is located in the Town of Ramapo, in Rockland County.

The District is governed by the Board of Education (Board) which is composed of seven elected

members. The Board is responsible for the general management and control of the Districts financial

and educational affairs. The Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent) is the Districts chief executive

officer and is responsible, along with other administrative staff, for day-to-day District management

under the Boards direction.

The District operates seven schools, with approximately 4,500 students and 610 employees. During

the 2011-12 fiscal year, the District had operating expenditures of approximately $118 million, funded

primarily with real property taxes and State aid. The Districts budgeted expenditures for the 2012-13

fiscal year were $127 million.

Scope and Objective

The objective of our audit was to examine the Districts fund balance and payroll for the period July 1,

2011, to January 14, 2013. Our audit addressed the following related questions:

Did the District maintain fund balance in accordance with statutory requirements and

appropriately establish, fund, and use reserve funds?

Were District employees paid according to Board resolutions or approved contracts?

Audit Results

The District has accumulated more than $16.3 million in excess funds that could be used to benefit

taxpayers by paying one-time expenditures, funding necessary reserves, reducing debt and/or reducing

the tax levy, in accordance with applicable statutory requirements. The excess balance is about 13

percent of the subsequent years budget, which is much higher than the statutory 4 percent limit allowedfor school districts. The District circumvented the 4 percent limit by inappropriately encumbering

approximately $8.7 million in purchase orders and tax certioraris for 2012 fiscal year. In addition, the

District had $2.3 million in excess funds in the unemployment and insurance reserves.

Nine of the 40 employees tested started their employment at steps higher than the entry level. In

total, those nine employees cost about $95,000 more a year than if they started at the entry level. For

example, one employee was hired at step 11, which was about $26,400 more than the entry level step

one and another started at step 6 which was $12,800 more than the entry level step one. According to


5/27


District officials, individuals were given higher levels because of degree completion, work experience,

difficulty of academic curriculum, and scarcity of a particular skill set needed by the District. However,

District officials were unable to provide any documentation supporting why those nine employees

received an initial salary at those particular levels.

Comments of District Officials

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with District officials and their

comments, which appear in Appendix A, have been considered in preparing this report. District

officials disagreed with the findings and recommendations in our report. Appendix B includes our

comments on the issues raised in the Districts response letter.


6/27


Background

Introduction

Objective

The Ramapo Central School District (District) is located in the Town

of Ramapo, in Rockland County. The District is governed by the Board

of Education (Board) which is composed of seven elected members.

The Board is responsible for the general management and control ofthe Districts financial and educational affairs. The Superintendent of

Schools (Superintendent) is the Districts chief executive officer and

is responsible, along with other administrative staff, for day-to-day

District management under the Boards direction.

The District operates seven schools, with approximately 4,500

students and 610 employees. During the 2011-12 fiscal year, the

District had operating expenditures of approximately $118 million,

funded primarily with real property taxes and State aid. The Districts

budgeted expenditures for the 2012-13fi

scal year were $127 million.

The responsibility for effective financial planning and District

management rests with the Board, the Superintendent, and other

officials including the District Treasurer (Treasurer), who reports

financial information to the Board. The Assistant Superintendent

for Business is responsible for the management of overall District

business operations, including preparing all financial statements. The

Treasurer is responsible for accounting functions.

The objective of our audit was to examine the Districts fund balance

and payroll. Our audit addressed the following related questions:

Did the District maintain fund balance in accordance with

statutory requirements and appropriately establish, fund, and

use reserve funds?

Were District employees paid according to Board resolutions

or approved contracts?

We examined the Districts financial condition and payroll processes

for the period July 1, 2011, to January 14, 2013. To analyze the

Districts financial trends, we extended the scope back to the 2007-08

fiscal year.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards (GAGAS). More information on such

standards and the methodology used in performing this audit are

included in Appendix C of this report.

Scope and

Methodology


7/27


Comments ofDistrict Officials andCorrective Action

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed

with District officials and their comments, which appear in Appendix

A, have been considered in preparing this report. Appendix B includes

our comments on the issues raised in the Districts response letter.

The Board has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. Pursuant

to Section 35 of the General Municipal Law, Section 2116-a (3)(c)

of the Education Law and Section 170.12 of the Regulations of the

Commissioner of Education, a written corrective action plan (CAP)

that addresses the findings and recommendations in this report

must be prepared and provided to our office within 90 days, with

a copy forwarded to the Commissioner of Education. To the extent

practicable, implementation of the CAP must begin by the end of

the next fiscal year. For more information on preparing andfiling

your CAP, please refer to our brochure,Responding to an OSC Audit

Report, which you received with the draft audit report. The Board

should make the CAP available for public review in the District

Clerks office.


8/27


Fund Balance

Fund balance represents moneys remaining from priorfiscal years

that can be appropriated to finance the next years budget and/or to

be set aside as reserves for specific purposes. School districts may

carry over a portion of unexpended surplus fund balance from year-to-year to help mitigate the effect of unforeseen contingencies, to

ensure the orderly operations of the district, and for the continuity

of necessary programs and services. Accurate budget estimates and

fund balance levels help ensure that real property levies are not

greater than necessary. Real Property Tax Law limits the amount of

unexpended surplus funds that can be retained by school districts to

no more than 4 percent of the subsequent fiscal years budget. School

districts may also establish reserves to restrict a portion of fund

balance for a specific purpose, but must do so in compliance with

statutory requirements.

For the year ended June 30, 2012, the District reported unexpended

surplus fund balance (fund balance) of about $5.1 million, which was

within the 4 percent statutory limit. However, the Districts financial

reporting was not accurate and the unexpended surplus was actually

about $16.3 million, representing 13 percent of the subsequent

years budget, well in excess of the statutory limit. The difference

in the calculation of fund balance is the result of over-accounting for

encumbrances and a tax certiorari reserve. As a result, the District has

accumulated more than $11.3 million in excess funds that should be

used to benefi

t taxpayers by paying one-time expenditures, fundingnecessary reserves, and reducing debt and/or reducing the tax levy, in

accordance with applicable statutory requirements. In addition, the

unemployment and insurance reserves were unnecessarily funded,

further reducing the amounts that could have been used to benefit

District taxpayers.

The State Comptrollers Uniform System of Accounts and generally

accepted accounting principles (GAAP) provide the framework

within which financial transactions are recorded and reported,

resulting in financial statements that provide comparability between

governmental entities, consistency between accounting periods, andreliability for internal and external users offinancial statements. One

of the primary responsibilities of the Board and the Superintendent is

to ensure that District financial transactions are recorded in a manner

that meets these guidelines.

Encumbrances are commitments for payments related to unperformed

contracts for goods or services. Encumbrance accounting is

intended to guard against a district creating liabilities in excess of

Encumbrances


9/27


approved appropriations. In order for school district officials to

maintain budgetary control and to arrive at an accurate estimate of

its uncommitted appropriations, it is necessary to encumber all of

its known obligations when contracts are approved or purchases are

authorized. At the end of the fiscal year, a portion of the fund balance

can be set aside for the payment of goods, materials, and services that

have been ordered but not received. This restricted amount of fund

balance is known as the reserve for encumbrances.

The District encumbered approximately $12.6 million forfiscal year

ended June 2012, of which about $8.7 million in encumbrances were

not appropriate. This included about $7.7 million for tax certioraris

claims and $1 million unsupported and outdated purchase orders.

Moneys deposited in a tax certiorari reserve fund may only be used for

tax certiorari proceedings arising from the tax roll of the specific year

that the moneys were deposited into the reserve. Therefore, a school

district may not set aside moneys in a tax certiorari reserve fund in onefiscal year for the purpose offinancing judgments and claims arising

from the tax rolls of priorfiscal years. Also, tax certioraris claims are

not liabilities until legal proceedings are finalized. Therefore, under

GAAP, tax certiorari claims should not be encumbered. However,

District officials encumbered $7.7 million, which resulted in the

reported fund balance being understated.

In addition, although encumbrances that exist at the end of the

fiscal year may be carried over to the next year, they must represent

valid commitments for specific future expenditures. The $1 million

encumbered by District officials consisted of amounts that were notgoing to be paid and did not represent future expenditures. In fact, the

District reviewed these purchase orders and closed or canceled them

in January 2013 after the June 30, 2012 financial statements were

compiled. In addition, many of the amounts encumbered were not

supported by any documentation such as contracts or invoices, and

many were outdated, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Outdated Purchase Orders

FYE # of Items Aggregate Amts.

2007 1 $6,094

2008 0 $0

2009 8 $270,922

2010 15 $141,173

2011 43 $626,348

Total: 67 $1,044,537


10/27


Encumbrances should not be recorded simply as a means of reducing

available year-end fund balance. Encumbrances that are established

without a genuine purchase or contractual commitment artificially

reduce fund balance, resulting in the inappropriate circumvention of

the 4 percent statutory requirement.

A tax certiorari is a legal proceeding whereby a taxpayer who

has been denied a reduction in property tax assessment by a local

assessment review board or small claims procedure challenges the

assessment on the grounds of excessiveness, inequality, illegality,

or misclassification. Education Law authorizes school districts to

establish a reserve fund for payment of claims related to tax certiorari

proceedings. A school district may establish a reserve fund for the

potential cost of tax certiorari proceedings without approval by

voters, provided the total moneys in the reserve do not exceed the

amounts reasonably deemed necessary to meet anticipated judgments

and claims. Reserve funds that are not expended for the payment of

judgments or claims arising out of tax certiorari proceedings for thetax roll in the year the moneys are deposited to the fund and/or that

will not be reasonably required to pay any such judgment or claim,

must be returned to the general fund on or before the first day of the

fourth fiscal year following the deposit of such moneys to the reserve

fund.

The Districts tax certiorari reserve fund balance was approximately

$3.7 million as of June 30, 2012.1 The District funds the reserve at the

end of each year with surplus funds that would otherwise be applied

to fund balance and be included when calculating the 4 percent

fund balance restrictions. Over a five-year period, the District paidabout $4.5 million in tax certiorari claims with operating funds and

never used any money from the reserve, which is an indication that

the moneys put in the reserves were not needed to pay claims. The

District provided documentation that listed all possible liabilities

to be paid from the reserve fund. However, they could not provide

us with specific documentation detailing which claims were from

tax certiorari proceedings for the tax roll in the year the moneys

were deposited to the fund represented by the reserve; therefore,

it precluded the District from properly monitoring the reserve and

returning the portion of the funds that must be returned to the generalfund on or before the first day of the fourth fiscal year following the

deposit of such moneys to the reserve fund.

To determine how much of the tax certiorari reserve fund could be

supported, we obtained specific general ledger activity from July 1,

____________________1 This amount was in addition to the $7.7 tax certiorari encumbrance discussed in

the previous section.

Tax Certiorari Reserve


11/27


2007, through June 30, 2012. The balance as of July 1, 2007, was

about $3.2 million. Since funds must be returned on the first day of the

fourth year after they were deposited, we have included only amounts

carried over from 2007 and all amounts deposited from 2008 - 2012.

This totaled about $1.2 million that may be needed for tax certiorari

claims in the future. The District currently has $3.7 million in the

reserve; therefore, the reserve is over-funded by $2.5 million.

If these moneys had remained in the Districts fund balance or were

returned to the fund balance, the funds could have been used to benefit

District taxpayers by paying one-time expenses, reducing debt, or

reducing property taxes in the prior and current years.

According to General Municipal Law (GML), the purpose of an

unemployment reserve is to reimburse the State Unemployment

Insurance Fund for payments made to claimants. Expenditures may

be made only as required by law to pay into the Unemployment

Insurance Fund an amount equivalent to the amount of benefits paidto claimants and charged to the Districts account. If at the end of any

fiscal year, moneys in the fund exceed amounts required to be paid

into the Unemployment Insurance Fund, plus any additional amounts

required to pay all pending claims, the Board, within 60 days of the

close of the fiscal year, may elect to transfer all or part of the excess

amounts to certain other reserve funds, or apply all or part of the

excess to the budget appropriation of the next succeeding fiscal year.

The District held excess funds in the unemployment reserve. For the

five-year period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012, the average

reported expenditures for such unemployment claims averaged$57,000 a year. The reserve balance averaged about $505,000 during

that same period, a difference of $448,000, which represents excess

funds that could have been returned to the general fund.

Although the District has used some of the funds during that period,

and plans to use the funds for upcoming layoffs, they could not

provide specific analysis of possible future claims. Therefore, this

excess could have been used to benefit District taxpayers.

An insurance reserve is authorized by GML to fund certain losses,claims, actions, or judgments which would not be covered by

insurance. The annual allocation to the reserve is limited to 5 percent

of the adopted budget. An insurance reserve fund may also be

used to pay for expert or professional services in connection with

the investigation, adjustment, or settlement of claims, actions, or

judgments.

Unemployment Reserve

Insurance Reserve


12/27


Recommendations

Although the District purchases liability insurance to limit the need

for substantial reserves to fund insurance claims, it still maintained

an average balance of $2.2 million in the insurance reserve over the

last five fiscal years. The District has not expended moneys from this

reserve for its statutory purpose during the same period. For example,

in 2010, a claim was paid for $425,000. Although at the time the

reserve balance was more than $3 million, the District used general

fund moneys to pay the claim. This is an indication that the moneys

held in the fund were not needed and should be returned to the general

fund.

By maintaining excessive and/or unnecessary reserves, combined

with inappropriately encumbering funds, the Board and District

officials have withheld more than $11 million from productive use,

levied unnecessarily taxes, and compromised the transparency of

District finances to the taxpayers.

1. District officials should develop a plan to use surplus fundbalance and unnecessary reserves in a manner that benefits

District taxpayers. In order to provide appropriate transparency,

the use of surplus fund balance should be done through the budget

process with public disclosure. Such uses could include, but are

not limited to:

Funding necessary reserves

Paying off debt

Funding one-time expenditures

Reducing District property tax(es).

2. District officials should ensure that year-end encumbrances are

valid and supported.

3. The Board and District officials should review all reserves and

determine if the amounts reserved are necessary, reasonable, and

in compliance with statutory requirements.


13/27


Employee Compensation

Recommendation

Teaching staff that are employed by the District should be

compensated at the salary level established by the District and its

collective bargaining agreement. To determine if the compensation

is appropriate, District officials responsible for hiring should reviewsupporting documentation such as academic background and related

work experience. There may be certain circumstances where an

employee may have a particular set of unique skills that is in demand

by the District. These circumstances may warrant the employee to be

compensated at a higher level. However, the District should document

the justification as to why such an employee is compensated at a higher

level and the Board should review and approve such justification.

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) includes a salary schedule

broken down by classifi

cation. There are multiple classifi

cations thata teacher can fall under based on education and post graduate work.

Within each classification there are steps which usually correspond to

years of service in that category. We randomly selected 40 employees

out of 667 to determine whether the District compensated employees

appropriately. We found that nine of the 40 employees tested were

at salary steps disproportionate with years of service. These nine

employees started their employment at steps higher than step 1.

These employees were hired between 2003 and 2007. For example,

an employee was hired at step 11, which was about $26,400 more than

the entry level step 1 and another started at step 6, which was $12,800

more than the entry level step one. In total, those nine employeescost about $95,000 more a year than if they started at the entry level.

According to District officials, individuals were given higher levels

because of degree completion, work experience, difficulty of academic

curriculum, and scarcity of a particular skill set needed by the District.

This was an informal practice that was only recently detailed in the

latest CBA. We were able to verify their credentials such as extent

of education and other advanced certification. However, District

officials were unable to provide any documentation supporting why

those nine employees received an initial salary at those particular

steps. They told us it was up to the discretion of the previous Director

of Human Resources.

When significant decisions in the hiring process are not documented,

it reduces the transparency of the process. This could increase the risk

of misappropriation through the salary process.

4. District officials should properly document the reasons for any

starting salary that exceeds the established entry level rate.


14/27


APPENDIX A

RESPONSE FROM DISTRICT OFFICIALS

The District officials response to this audit can be found on the following pages.


15/27


SeeNote 1

Page 21

SeeNote 5

Page 21

SeeNote 4

Page 21

SeeNote 3

Page 21

SeeNote 2

Page 21


16/27


SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SN

P


17/27


SeeNote 10

Page 22

SeeNote 11

Page 23

SeeNote 12

Page 23

SeeNote 9

Page 22


18/27


SeeNo

Pag

See

NoPag

SeeNo

Pag


19/27


SeeNote 1

Page 2

SeeNote 4

Page 2

SeeNote 1

Page 2

SeeNote 1

Page 2


20/27


SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag

SeeNo

Pag


21/27


SeeNote 4

Page 2


22/27


APPENDIX B

OSC COMMENTS ON THE DISTRICTS RESPONSE

Note 1

Our audit addressed two specific areas: fund balance and employee compensation. Our audit did not

include all of the Districts operations and we did not conclude that all public funds were accounted

for. We didfind internal control weaknesses related to accounting for fund balance and employee

compensation, as stated in the audit report.

Note 2

The District exceeded the 4 percent statutory limit on unassigned fund balance.

Note 3

Our audit was performed according to Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards

(GAGAS), which require us to obtain sufficient and competent evidence to support ourfindings. These

standards require that audit staff is independent so that opinions, findings, conclusions, judgments

and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by reasonable and informed

third parties. Furthermore, ourfindings related to fund balance and reserves are based on Generally

Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and statutory requirements.

Note 4

All numbers in the report are accurate, factual, and supported with documented evidence. The results

of our audit and recommendations were discussed with District officials on numerous occasions andtheir feedback was considered in preparing this report. We provided our analysis, sample selection, all

support for ourfindings, and written response addressing their concerns.

Note 5

The report accurately states that the Districts actual unexpended surplus is $16.3 million, which

exceeds the 4 percent statutory limit. The report provides specific details concerning the Districts

recording of inappropriate encumbrances. If those encumbrances were correctly recorded, the Districts

unexpended surplus does not comply with the 4 percent statutory limit. Our conclusions were based

on the fact the District did not properly apply GAAP when recording encumbrances.

Note 6

The report states that The District circumvented the 4 percent limit by inappropriately encumbering

approximately $8.7 million in purchase orders and tax certioraris for 2012 fiscal year. The $8.7

million was made up mostly of the incorrect encumbrance of tax certioraris totaling about $7.7 million.

Documents provided by the District did not support justification for encumbering tax certioraris.


23/27


Information in the audit report concerning the $1 million in unsupported or outdated purchase orders

is accurate. Subsequent to our exit conference, District officials provided documentation which

supported payment of claims related to three purchase orders totaling about $48,000. We updated

the report to reflect that information. On August 21, 2013, the Assistant Superintendent for Business

confirmed that those were the only purchase orders that were in fact paid as opposed to closed after

our audit. The District reviewed and cancelled $1 million in purchase orders after the June 30, 2012

financial statements were issued. This supports the finding in our audit. District officials reviewed and

closed these purchase orders after the fiscal year ended, which clearly indicates that these purchaseorders did not represent valid commitments for specific future expenditures. If this review was done

prior to the fiscal year end, the District would have had to report more available fund balance and

would have exceeded the 4 percent requirement.

In addition, the Districts independent auditor, in its management letter for period ending June 30,

2012, stated:

We recommend that all open purchase orders, including blanket purchase orders be completely

reviewed at year end, all estimates to be analyzed and close/canceled, unneeded items be reversed.

Note 7

Although District officials cancelled $1 million in purchase orders during ourfield work, this did not

change the finding relating to the excessive fund balance because this amount impacted the year end

fund balance calculation.

Note 8

We told District officials that tax certioraris cannot be encumbered according to GAAP, and that one

option would be to fund a tax reserve. By properly funding reserves, the District would be able to fund

settlements without bonding.

Note 9

The statement is accurate as reported. Based on the general ledger information provided during the

audit by the District Treasurer, the reserve was funded on June 30 of each year from 2008 through

2012, as follows:

6/30/08 increased by about $101,000




6/30/12 increased by about $13,000.

Note 10

The quoted statement in the Districts response is taken out of context. The statement included in an

email to District officials, referred to the list of potential tax certiorari amounts carried over from 2007.

We have clearly and consistently discussed ourfindings with District officials throughout the audit

process. Our report discusses the specific reasons as to why this amount was disallowed. The District

has not funded the tax certiorari reserve according to the provisions outlined in Education Law.


24/27


In addition, the Districts independent auditor in the management letter for period ending June 30,

2012, commented about open purchase orders and the tax certiorari reserve:

The District has reached its three year period of several of the amounts reserved and we are

recommending that all tax certiorari reserves be reviewed to determine if any amounts are still

outstanding and need to be reserved again. Any unneeded reserves must be returned to the unreserved

fund.

Note 11

The report is consistent with guidance provided by the State Comptrollers Local Government

Management Guide onReserve Funds. The report states that the District can use the reserves, but

only in compliance with statutory requirements.

Note 12

The Districts approach to reserve funds has not been consistent with statutory requirements and has

resulted in excess amounts of fund balance being retained.

Note 13

The Districts practice in funding and not using the tax certiorari reserve is not fiscally prudent. The

purpose of the reserve is to pay judgments and claims in tax certiorari proceedings in accordance with

Real Property Tax Law. The District, however, accumulated funds, but never used those funds to pay

the claims; instead, they were paid out of the general fund, thereby increasing taxpayer burden.

Note 14

District officials have consistently over-funded the unemployment reserve. Their response indicates

that, they did not need the funds until 2012 2013fi

scal year; however, they maintained over $500,000over the previous five years. The justification provided by the District supported that on average only

$57,000 was used. Therefore, the excess could have been used to benefit District taxpayers.

Note 15

District officials did not use the reserve for its intended purposes. They paid for the $425,000 claim

using general fund resources while having about $3.1 million in the reserve at the time.

Note 16

Even though District offi

cials provide various reports as stated in their response, if accountingprinciples are not being properly applied and encumbrances do not reflect valid future commitments,

then appropriate transparency is impaired.

Note 17

We provided our list of employees tested throughout the audit. At the informal findings meeting on June

17, 2013, the Superintendent, after receiving the list of the nine employees with disproportionate salary

steps, commented that the Districts own internal review also had issues with these same employees.


25/27


APPENDIX C

AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

We selected the Districts financial condition and payroll processing for audit testing. To accomplish

the objective of this audit:

We testedfive reserves and all the encumbrances for year ending June 30, 2012.

We documented the internal controls and related procedures surrounding reserve funds; this

included how they were established and how they were funded.

We determined if reserve funds are properly established and funded according to policy and

statutory requirements.

We determined if the District modified the budgets to circumvent the fund balance limit.

We calculated proper unassigned fund balance based on the appropriateness of the Districts

reserves and amount allocated as an encumbrance.

We randomly selected 40 employees from a population of 667 to determine salary appropriateness.

We documented internal controls and related procedures for human resources.

We determined if salaries of employees was properly established.

We traced actual salary to collective bargaining agreements based on credentials, years of

service, and other attributes.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards (GAGAS). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for ourfindings and conclusions based on our audit

objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for ourfindings and

conclusions based on our audit objective.


26/27


APPENDIX D

HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT


Public Information Office

110 State Street, 15th Floor

Albany, New York 12236

(518) 474-4015

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/

To obtain copies of this report, write or visit our web page:


27/27

APPENDIX E

OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

Andrew A. SanFilippo, Executive Deputy Comptroller

Nathaalie N. Carey, Assistant Comptroller

LOCAL REGIONAL OFFICE LISTING

BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICE

H. Todd Eames, Chief Examiner


State Office Building - Suite 1702

44 Hawley Street

Binghamton, New York 13901-4417

(607) 721-8306 Fax (607) 721-8313

Email: [email protected]

Serving: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware,Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins Counties

BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICE

Robert Meller, Chief Examiner


295 Main Street, Suite 1032

Buffalo, New York 14203-2510

(716) 847-3647 Fax (716) 847-3643


Serving: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie,

Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming Counties

GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICE

Jeffrey P. Leonard, Chief Examiner


One Broad Street Plaza

Glens Falls, New York 12801-4396

(518) 793-0057 Fax (518) 793-5797


Serving: Albany, Clinton, Essex, Franklin,

Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, Rensselaer,

Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, Washington Counties

HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICEIra McCracken, Chief Examiner


NYS Office Building, Room 3A10

250 Veterans Memorial Highway

Hauppauge, New York 11788-5533

(631) 952-6534 Fax (631) 952-6530


Serving: Nassau and Suffolk Counties

NEWBURGH REGIONAL OFFICE

Tenneh Blamah, Chief Examiner


33 Airport Center Drive, Suite 103

New Windsor, New York 12553-4725

(845) 567-0858 Fax (845) 567-0080


Serving: Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange,

Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, Westchester Counties

ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE

Edward V. Grant, Jr., Chief Examiner


The Powers Building

16 West Main Street Suite 522

Rochester, New York 14614-1608

(585) 454-2460 Fax (585) 454-3545


Serving: Cayuga, Chemung, Livingston, Monroe,

Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates Counties

SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICE

Rebecca Wilcox, Chief Examiner


State Office Building, Room 409

333 E. Washington Street

Syracuse, New York 13202-1428

(315) 428-4192 Fax (315) 426-2119


Serving: Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison,

Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence Counties

STATEWIDE AUDITSAnn C. Singer, Chief Examiner

State Office Building - Suite 1702

44 Hawley Street

Binghamton, New York 13901-4417

(607) 721-8306 Fax (607) 721-8313